Nicholas Williams

PHIL 1000
Dr. Drexler
13 December 2015

Signature Assignment Omelas

The society of Omelas is a very morally challenging one, with the happiness of all
depending on the misery of one. This is a very utilitarian sort of system, because it values the
greater good, the happiness of everyone else in the city, over the misery of a single soul. It is
seen as a fair trade, because a city is more than one. The various philosophers that we have
studied throughout the semester can show differing viewpoints on this situation than others, the
main two being John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. These two philosophers offer two differing
viewpoints on this situation, and really demonstrates the differences between Utilitarianism,
which is used by Mill, and Kantian Deontology, which is used by Kant. Both have valid
viewpoints on the correct thing to do in this situation, and highlight the struggle between The
Good versus The Right.
John Mill is a popular philosopher of Utilitarianism, which focuses on the good of the
whole versus the good of just the few. It is almost clinical in its applications, because it focuses
on almost purely the numbers behind any given situation and if one option still causes pain, but
causes good for more people, than it is the more valid option to take. One of the quotes from
the story that Mill would have agreed with would be, If the child were brought up into the
sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good

thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight
of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms (Le Guin 4). In the situation of
Omelas, the greatest good can be achieved by keeping this child in the darkness and squalor of
his current living situation, because it allows the rest of the city to prosper. While this does mean
the city runs off the basis of a child in pain, Mill would argue that this causes the greatest amount
of good, and thus is the morally correct decision to make. While you have to keep this child in
this horrible living situation, there is an entire civilization prospering on the surface, all thanks to
the suffering of one. Would it be worse to let this child be free, but doom the rest of the city to
regress away from the utopia that it is? This is something that Mill would argue for, in his views
of utilitarianism. A quote that really demonstrates the sort of utopia that Omelas is, the sort of
utopia that Mill would argue would be horrible to take away for the benefit of one, would be,
Most of the processions have reached the Green Fields by now. A marvelous smell of
cooking goes forth from the red and blue tents of the provisioners. The faces of small children
are amiably sticky; in the benign grey beard of a man a couple of crumbs of rich pastry are
entangled. The youths and girls have mounted their horses and are beginning to group around the
starting line of the course. An old woman, small, fat, and laughing, is passing out flowers from a
basket, and tall young men, wear her flowers in their shining hair. A child of nine or ten sits at
the edge of the crowd, alone, playing on a wooden flute. People pause to listen, and they smile,
but they do not speak to him, for he never ceases playing and never sees them, his dark eyes
wholly rapt in the sweet, thin magic of the tune (Le Guin 2). This society is blossoming, has
great technology, and seems to be the seat of great culture for the surrounding area. Mill, again,
would argue that in the basis of Utilitarianism, the happiness of this great city would certainly
outweigh the happiness of just one small child. A quote from the Merriam-Webster dictionary

states that the definition of Utilitarianism is, The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful
or for the benefit of a majority. This certainly seems to hold true for the story of Omelas.
Overall, the morally correct thing to, in terms of Utilitarianism, would be to keep the society the
way it is. While there is suffering that is keeping the entire city afloat, the suffering is nothing
compared to the suffering that would ensue if the entire city were to dissipate and all the culture
and happiness would be taken away if the child were to be saved. It is never stated why this
would happen, but we have to assume that it would and that is why the child is kept the way that
it is.
There is another philosopher with a much different viewpoint on this situation than Mill
would have. Kant is a proponent of Kantian Deontology, which is almost the exact opposite of
the theories of Mill and Utilitarianism. Basically, we are all born with an innate sense of right,
and we have the autonomy to do what we think is right according to that moral compass. We are
the only species, in the eyes of Kant, which is born with this. Thus, we have to act in accordance
with the moral guidelines that we are born with. Otherwise, it would reduce us to the same level
as animals and other creatures without this moral compass. In this quote, Kant would argue that
these young people would see that the right thing to do would be to end this childs suffering and
save them, and act accordingly to their moral compass. However, they act against it to keep their
own happiness alive, and Kant would find this to be against our very nature, Often the young
people go home in tears, or in a tearless rage, when they have seen the child and faced this
terrible paradox. They may brood over it for weeks or years. But as time goes on they begin to
realize that even if the child could be released, it would not get much good of its freedom: a little
vague pleasure of warmth and food, no doubt, but little more (Le Guin 4). Everyone who
broods over it is experiencing turmoil because they are not acting within the natural moral rules

that we, as humans, should abide by, and they are ignoring our feelings about something that is
morally reprehensible because of their wish to keep their lives the same. Another point that Kant
would critique would be this line, At times one of the adolescent girls or boys who go to see the
child does not go home to weep or rage, does not, in fact, go home at all. Sometimes also a man
or woman much older falls silent for a day or two, and then leaves home. These people go out
into the street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the
city of Omelas, through the beautiful gates (Le Guin 4). If a society is based off of something
that is so disturbing that, upon seeing it, people would just walk out of the city is something that
is not very good. The people leaving the city would be acting under their moral compass and
leaving, but the fact that the city is still operating under this utilitarian guideline shouldnt sit
well with anyone. Kant would argue that we should not abide by this society that is so recklessly
immoral and perhaps do what many people in the story did towards the end. Many people could
not take the intense guilt of knowing what their happiness would cost, and simply left the city all
together in this quote, At times one of the adolescent girls or boys who go to see the child does
not go home to weep or rage, does not, in fact, go home at all. Sometimes also a man or woman
much older falls silent for a day or two, and then leaves home. These people go out into the
street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of
Omelas, through the beautiful gates. They keep walking across the farmlands of Omelas. Each
one goes alone, youth or girl man or woman. Night falls; the traveler must pass down village
streets, between the houses with yellow-lit windows, and on out into the darkness of the fields.
Each alone, they go west or north, towards the mountains. They go on. They leave Omelas, they
walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back (Le Guin 4). This would be something
that Kant might agree with doing. While he might argue that it is our duty to actually rescue the

child and take it upon ourselves and our morality to do this, at the very least these people are not
going to be living in a society based off of such lies and suffering.
Finally, after the inputs by these two philosophers, there is always the view of the reader.
In the case of myself, I would like to believe that I would side with Kant. However, the more I
think about the situation, the more it seems that it would be hard to accomplish this. Every fiber
of my being would want to say that this is morally wrong and that I should fix the situation,
however, the more I think about it, the more I think I would unwillingly side with Mill. While
outside of situations like these, we could always argue that we will do the correct thing and make
everything right. However, in the moment, you will be hard pressed to find someone to stick with
these moral values. When it is the happiness of yourself, your family, and your friends against
the happiness of a single child that you have never met and only briefly seen, than it is a harder
choice to make to rebel against these system of values. The most that one could probably do is
side with the people who left Omelas, leaving it forever to rid themselves of the guilt that is
wracking them. While this isnt technically fixing the problem and following their inborn moral
guidelines like Kant would argue, this is still not technically falling into the set of Utilitarianism
that Mill would argue for. It is hard to prioritize the correct moral obligations in this situation,
since we almost always weigh ourselves and our families above the wellbeing of other people
when it would affect those said loved ones. I gained a lot of insight into my views and moral
viewpoints in general after engaging in this more comparative analysis of my views on this
situation. Everyone likes to believe theyd be against the grain, doing the right thing, and not
following a corrupt society. However, in reality, this is much different. We cannot make these far
reaching and long term decisions when there are so many short term consequences that would
happen that catch our attention in a much bigger way.

Overall, the story of Omelas is a great demonstration of The Good versus The Right.
Mill and Kant both have differing views on this situation based off their ideology that we have
grown to learn throughout the semester, and they make it interesting to take different viewpoints
on the same kind of situation. At the same time, viewing both of these philosophical viewpoints
against our own views that we have in our minds, it can make us really think about how moral
we really are, and what sort of moral viewpoints we actually have versus what we would like to
believe we have. In the end, the story of Omelas is a fictional story designed to engage our minds
in this classic good vs right argument, but it is still something that we need to think about. We
have situations like these, while not quite as far reaching, in our lives every day. We have to
make decisions that place the good of the whole versus the right thing to do in any given
situation. We all have to take a closer look at our own morality in order to better understand
where we stand in this argument, and how it will affect our lives going forward when we reach a
better understanding of it.